An important distinction from suggesting that Hannity actually advocated violence or was responsible for the actions of this guy (which again, is a claim I didn’t make).

Weasel words if there ever were. Your meaning was clear – there’s a connection between being ‘hannitized’ and gunning down people in a church. Feeble denials won’t help your case, not here. Maybe you might want to go peddle your hate for conservatives on Kos. I’m sure they’ll have a good laugh at your spewings.

But just to be clear, I’m not one of these people who believes that music lyrics, video games, comics, etc. should be held responsible for the violence in America. I grew up in the 80’s loathing the PMRC that wanted to censor all of my favorite music, after all. Hannity should enjoy all the same free speech rights as anyone else. So I guess what I’m saying there is, even though one can predict that there are going to be a few crazies out there that will act on some of this stuff, I’m not willing to toss the 1st amendment out the window because of it.

So wrote ChenZen and I agree. We can’t BLAME talk show for a crazy person. But perhaps TASTE can come back a bit w/o ad hominem. For instance, take a look at Mark Twain on the Phillipines. If you’re going to be entertaining you don’t need to call people names, you simply have to be talented and clever with words.

“Hannitized” is a term that Hannity uses on his own show. In fact, its in the intro every single day (the stated objective is to “Hannitize the vote”). On the surface, I suppose its a made-up term that means influenced by Hannity. So, when I read in Adkisson’s manifesto that he did this because “he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.”, I meant it in the context that he had simply drunken the kool-aid (as per aforementioned stated objective). In that sense, he’d been “Hannitized”. An important distinction from suggesting that Hannity actually advocated violence or was responsible for the actions of this guy (which again, is a claim I didn’t make). It was more or less an observation based on the fact that I’m familiar with the rhetoric of the pundits in question, and I saw a match. In any case, your “next logical step” is unfounded (and is basically a goal post move by definition anyway).

But just to be clear, I’m not one of these people who believes that music lyrics, video games, comics, etc. should be held responsible for the violence in America. I grew up in the 80’s loathing the PMRC that wanted to censor all of my favorite music, after all. Hannity should enjoy all the same free speech rights as anyone else. So I guess what I’m saying there is, even though one can predict that there are going to be a few crazies out there that will act on some of this stuff, I’m not willing to toss the 1st amendment out the window because of it.

MD, thanks for setting me straight. I now see the truth, as my enlightened betters like Chen see it. He will not have to send me to one of his re-education camps.

Otherwise, I might think yo had a couple of good points…

Whereas people who kill women, children, Muslims, Christians, soldiers, civilians, old, young, etc. in the name of Allah, peace, the environment etc. are insurgents and freedom fighters who must be vetted, consulted, and (whenever possible) surrendered to in a 16-month timetable for withdraw. William Ayers is a presidential advisor and a hero, while Jim David Adkisson is a monster. People who kill abortion doctors in America are murders programmed personally by Sean Hannity (MUHAHAHAHAHA!) while people who kill doctors, lawyers, craftsmen, engineers, etc. in China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. are Heroes of the Revolution and our moral and intellectual betters. Jot this down GWR so I don’t have to set you straight again.

Whoever kills in the name of a cause favored by liberals is worthy of worship. Whoever kills in the name of a cause liberals hate is a fiend. Got it, GWR?

You attributed the notion that I sought to have Hannity (etc.) arrested to my argument, which I clearly never suggested. But just in case, I looked up straw man:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.

Yep, you made a straw man. And like I said, an odd one at that.

And you might want to look up “straw man” before you try to apply it. It fits the current scenario perfectly. Your rationale is this: Adkisson listened to Hannity, therefore Hannity is somehow responsible for Adkisson’s actions. All I did was apply your own poor attempt at reasoning to the Unibomber case to illustrate the absurdity of your position. Apparently you’re the only one who didn’t get the point.

Michelle Malkin linked a bit where this guy doesn’t like Christians either.

Too bad he is the only guy in the country liberals can beat in an argument.

An odd straw man, since Kaczynski, IIRC, railed against leftists in his manifesto.

One could also add ecoterrorist groups to that list. Or are they “insurgents”, in which case we must withdraw within 16 months and seek a political instead of military solution?

But I’m sure Chen will see that differently. The left tolerates hate and violence as long as it’s directed at the right targets – see Obama’s friend Bill Ayers as Exhibit A.